The High Court dismissed two applications challenging the detention of Ninh Thu Trang and Thi Phuong Vu, ruling on 13 March 2018 that the State had shown both detentions were in accordance with law.
The applications were brought under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution. The judge had directed inquiries after ex parte applications on 6 March. The question at this stage was whether the applicants were being detained lawfully, including whether there was an intention and a reasonable prospect of carrying out their deportations within the applicable statutory period.
The judgment records that Trang arrived in Ireland in March 2015 on permission to remain as a student until 3 June that year. Vu arrived in 2014 on student permission, which expired in September 2016. Both were later detected working unlawfully. Deportation orders were made against them on 24 November 2017. They did not leave by the specified time or present themselves as required by notices accompanying the orders. Both were arrested on 19 February 2018 while attending Bray District Court on immigration-related summary charges.
The applicants argued that the pending criminal proceedings undermined the prospect of deportation within eight weeks. Their counsel also questioned whether seeking to bring the criminal cases forward would interfere with the judicial process. The judge accepted affidavit evidence from State witnesses that the criminal matters could be brought forward and that the charges did not displace the intention to deport. He said Gardaí could coordinate, and prosecuting Gardaí could appropriately ask the District Court to advance proceedings. The court did not find that a judge could be directed to do so.
The judge accepted the Garda evidence that detention was necessary, noting the applicants’ failures to leave and report as required, and other evidence cited in the judgment. The evidence had not been challenged by cross-examination. The grant of bail in the criminal cases did not, in the judge’s view, determine whether immigration detention was necessary.
The applicants’ solicitor had raised concerns about possible human trafficking in letters dated 12 and 13 March. The judge found that a specific factual basis for a trafficking complaint had not been established on the evidence before him. He also recorded the State’s position that neither applicant would be removed before a decision was made on whether to apply an administrative 60-day reflection and recovery period. The judgment held that the outstanding decision did not make the current detention unlawful, as it could be made within the applicable statutory period.
The court dismissed both applications. It did not determine whether either applicant was a trafficking victim or order their release.